We performed a comparison between Check Point UTM-1 [EOL] and Juniper SRX Series Firewall based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Netgate, Fortinet, OPNsense and others in Firewalls."Anti-Spam web content filterinG."
"Fortinet FortiGate is a scalable solution."
"We use the filtering feature the most. It has filtering and inbuilt securities. We can create customized rules to define which users can access a particular type of site. We can create policies inside the firewall."
"It is a safe product."
"The base firewall features are quite valuable to us."
"Easy to use support and licensing portal as well as activation process."
"Its user interface is good, and it is always working fine."
"Fortinet FortiGate is stable. It's used across all the countries, this is the way most multinationals run their system."
"It provides visibility and drives organizational security."
"We can create a domain to separate and segregate some functions, some services."
"The databases and its signatures are its most important features."
"Firewalls help us a lot in controlling traffic on our network and preventing unauthorized access."
"The filtering was very good."
"The solution is very robust."
"It safeguards against cyber attacks."
"The most valuable feature for us was to implement negligent functionality, to direct functionality to viewer control and application control so we could disconnect, and at the same time, we installed checkpoints. We disconnected our proxy."
"The main features are safeguarding their data and ensuring robust security services for organizational data."
"The IPS functionality of Juniper SRX is useful in the telecom industry."
"It integrates well with Fortinet and Palo Alto."
"We mostly use the Layer 4 firewall functions: Access rules, NAT, and site-to-site IPsec VPN."
"It uses many applications, like antivirus blocking and web filtering."
"It's a reliable firewall and very stable, for both the hardware and applications it is stable."
"The most valuable feature is robustness."
"Technical support is perfect."
"I would like reporting to be improved and should offer a lot more tools to monitor the products."
"Some features of Fortinet FortiGate are actually fee enabled that are inconvenient for deploying in production. Other issues relate to isolation with Cisco products and your server."
"It needs more available central management."
"Its reporting can be improved. Sometimes, I don't get proper reports."
"They should offer special pricing to premium partners and customers."
"Technical support needs to be improved."
"It is quite new for us, and we need to go more in-depth into the monitoring tools. It provides different features that we need to do what we want. So far, it is okay for us. In terms of improvement, in the future, they can provide a faster implementation of features. Some of the features are first available in other solutions. Fortinet sometimes takes a little bit longer than other solutions, such as Check Point, to implement new features."
"The initial setup and configuration are not intuitive and require training."
"While the technical support is good, the Indian level technical support could use an upgrade."
"What has been the issue of firewalls is they ask me for policies and content filtering application control and all these features that are now part of Harmony."
"I am not able to see a demo."
"The solution could be improved if there was a better way to report. The reporting functionality is not really good. Even though it's not the major function. Maybe adding a way to make a custom report."
"Specifically on the user experience, sometimes the set up of things, such as the VPN SSL, takes a lot of time to load and a lot of time to get up and running on every session."
"The interface needs improvement."
"The solution should be more user-friendly."
"Some features that could be improved are advanced threat protection, sandboxing, and vulnerability management."
"While the GUI is pretty good on the Juniper side, there can still be tweaks made to it that will make it even better."
"It was very difficult to deal with and required a lot of support, and the UI is very poor."
"It did not improve our safety because the IDS does not detect some attacks, but our anti-virus software did."
"In the future, I would like to see the UI more responsive"
"The CLI is verbose. You have to say a lot to do a little. I don't like that part of it. Cisco's command syntax seems to be a good bit more concise. When you're trying to get something done, you don't want to have to type a bunch."
"There are a lot of features that customers do not know about and I think that better documentation would help when it comes to learning how to use the product."
"There is room for improvement in scalability and performance. It's scalable and reliable, but when using next-generation firewall features, the performance decreases significantly for Juniper SRX."
"It does have its nuances in terms of deployment. There are always areas to make something easier or more intuitive or make the system auto-negotiate more with existing hardware."
Earn 20 points
Check Point UTM-1 [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Firewalls with 19 reviews while Juniper SRX Series Firewall is ranked 19th in Firewalls with 86 reviews. Check Point UTM-1 [EOL] is rated 8.2, while Juniper SRX Series Firewall is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Check Point UTM-1 [EOL] writes "Great firewalls, VPN, and Intrusion prevention capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Juniper SRX Series Firewall writes "Highly scalable, user-friendly UI, and easy to maintain". Check Point UTM-1 [EOL] is most compared with , whereas Juniper SRX Series Firewall is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Netgate pfSense, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and Check Point NGFW.
See our list of best Firewalls vendors and best Firewalls vendors.
We monitor all Firewalls reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.